You are a human being, not a gamer-tag. You might even possibly be a gamer. Microsoft saw Sony strap a console to a CD player and make it's way into over 100 million homes with the PS1. MS had to stand on the sidelines and watch Sony do it again with a DVD player in the PS2. So what did MS do? They zigged with HD-DVD when Sony zagged with BluRay come time for the current gen. It had nothing to do with giving you choice or even about backing a superior format and everything to do with how many houses Sony had access to. Over the course of years, MS kept their eye on the ball by putting their weight behind Live, even when it meant cutting the budget for first party games or even closing studios. Too late in the game, they saw that Nintendo had the right idea and decided to put half a billion dollars in re-branding the 360 as a motion controller oriented device.

And here we are, at the cusp of a new generation. You can be sure they are covering all of the bases with some kind of tablet controller, cell phone integration, Kinect right out of the box day 1, and the actual game controller as an afterthought. The system itself, centralized around 8GBs of slow and WTF. After all, there's no format war to hide behind this time around. Will it dawn on you too late that the games are actually the third or fourth function this is designed for? Probably not. In fact, I'm more than just a little bit willing to bet you will proclaim every sequel to Halo, Gears of War or Forza as Gaming Messiah just as you have done throughout this generation while more studios close or get relegated to the undead state known as Rare. Nevermind you can't sell your games to pay for new ones or continue to be unable to play the games you buy online without paying your excise to the "Microsoft sees me as a revenue stream" fund.. irregardless of the fact they sell information and space on said paid online to advertisers in the first place.

No, you won't draw that line in the sand. You will plug in your microhpone enabled camera to keep track of how many unique males and females use your system at any given time and tow the line that it's "progress" when your system recognizes you from your sister. Just pay no mind to the odd occasional jump from GI Joe The Movie advertisements to the inexplicable Barby's Playhouse Theme you can buy now for $2.99. It's all progress, and don't let anyone tell you a gaming system really should have faster RAM. Those people are fanboys who "just don't get it." After all, you can pause Halo 5 and watch Netflix. You're the boss! Drink the kool-aid.

War is fought for silence. For, it is with silence, you will know that war has ended.

You are a human being, not a gamer-tag. You might even possibly be a gamer. Microsoft saw Sony strap a console to a CD player and make it's way into over 100 million homes with the PS1. MS had to stand on the sidelines and watch Sony do it again with a DVD player in the PS2. So what did MS do? They zigged with HD-DVD when Sony zagged with BluRay come time for the current gen. It had nothing to do with giving you choice or even about backing a superior format and everything to do with how many houses Sony had access to. Over the course of years, MS kept their eye on the ball by putting their weight behind Live, even when it meant cutting the budget for first party games or even closing studios. Too late in the game, they saw that Nintendo had the right idea and decided to put half a billion dollars in re-branding the 360 as a motion controller oriented device.

And here we are, at the cusp of a new generation. You can be sure they are covering all of the bases with some kind of tablet controller, cell phone integration, Kinect right out of the box day 1, and the actual game controller as an afterthought. The system itself, centralized around 8GBs of slow and WTF. After all, there's no format war to hide behind this time around. Will it dawn on you too late that the games are actually the third or fourth function this is designed for? Probably not. In fact, I'm more than just a little bit willing to bet you will proclaim every sequel to Halo, Gears of War or Forza as Gaming Messiah just as you have done throughout this generation while more studios close or get relegated to the undead state known as Rare. Nevermind you can't sell your games to pay for new ones or continue to be unable to play the games you buy online without paying your excise to the "Microsoft sees me as a revenue stream" fund.. irregardless of the fact they sell information and space on said paid online to advertisers in the first place.

No, you won't draw that line in the sand. You will plug in your microhpone enabled camera to keep track of how many unique males and females use your system at any given time and tow the line that it's "progress" when your system recognizes you from your sister. Just pay no mind to the odd occasional jump from GI Joe The Movie advertisements to the inexplicable Barby's Playhouse Theme you can buy now for $2.99. It's all progress, and don't let anyone tell you a gaming system really should have faster RAM. Those people are fanboys who "just don't get it." After all, you can pause Halo 5 and watch Netflix. You're the boss! Drink the kool-aid.

You are a human being, not a gamer-tag. You might even possibly be a gamer. Microsoft saw Sony strap a console to a CD player and make it's way into over 100 million homes with the PS1. MS had to stand on the sidelines and watch Sony do it again with a DVD player in the PS2. So what did MS do? They zigged with HD-DVD when Sony zagged with BluRay come time for the current gen. It had nothing to do with giving you choice or even about backing a superior format and everything to do with how many houses Sony had access to. Over the course of years, MS kept their eye on the ball by putting their weight behind Live, even when it meant cutting the budget for first party games or even closing studios. Too late in the game, they saw that Nintendo had the right idea and decided to put half a billion dollars in re-branding the 360 as a motion controller oriented device. And here we are, at the cusp of a new generation. You can be sure they are covering all of the bases with some kind of tablet controller, cell phone integration, Kinect right out of the box day 1, and the actual game controller as an afterthought. The system itself, centralized around 8GBs of slow and WTF. After all, there's no format war to hide behind this time around. Will it dawn on you too late that the games are actually the third or fourth function this is designed for? Probably not. In fact, I'm more than just a little bit willing to bet you will proclaim every sequel to Halo, Gears of War or Forza as Gaming Messiah just as you have done throughout this generation while more studios close or get relegated to the undead state known as Rare. Nevermind you can't sell your games to pay for new ones or continue to be unable to play the games you buy online without paying your excise to the "Microsoft sees me as a revenue stream" fund.. irregardless of the fact they sell information and space on said paid online to advertisers in the first place. No, you won't draw that line in the sand. You will plug in your microhpone enabled camera to keep track of how many unique males and females use your system at any given time and tow the line that it's "progress" when your system recognizes you from your sister. Just pay no mind to the odd occasional jump from GI Joe The Movie advertisements to the inexplicable Barby's Playhouse Theme you can buy now for $2.99. It's all progress, and don't let anyone tell you a gaming system really should have faster RAM. Those people are fanboys who "just don't get it." After all, you can pause Halo 5 and watch Netflix. You're the boss! Drink the kool-aid.

Mandatory installed Kinect? I'm skipping, the kids have broken too many cams/webcams to have one mandatory for gameplay.. any games. I can deal with the always online, I can deal with the no used games, I can deal with the mandatory installs. I will NOT have a cam installed at all times on a gaming console.

This better be some kind of mistake or my Alan Wake 2 play time will be on steam!

You are a human being, not a gamer-tag. You might even possibly be a gamer. Microsoft saw Sony strap a console to a CD player and make it's way into over 100 million homes with the PS1. MS had to stand on the sidelines and watch Sony do it again with a DVD player in the PS2. So what did MS do? They zigged with HD-DVD when Sony zagged with BluRay come time for the current gen. It had nothing to do with giving you choice or even about backing a superior format and everything to do with how many houses Sony had access to. Over the course of years, MS kept their eye on the ball by putting their weight behind Live, even when it meant cutting the budget for first party games or even closing studios. Too late in the game, they saw that Nintendo had the right idea and decided to put half a billion dollars in re-branding the 360 as a motion controller oriented device.

And here we are, at the cusp of a new generation. You can be sure they are covering all of the bases with some kind of tablet controller, cell phone integration, Kinect right out of the box day 1, and the actual game controller as an afterthought. The system itself, centralized around 8GBs of slow and WTF. After all, there's no format war to hide behind this time around. Will it dawn on you too late that the games are actually the third or fourth function this is designed for? Probably not. In fact, I'm more than just a little bit willing to bet you will proclaim every sequel to Halo, Gears of War or Forza as Gaming Messiah just as you have done throughout this generation while more studios close or get relegated to the undead state known as Rare. Nevermind you can't sell your games to pay for new ones or continue to be unable to play the games you buy online without paying your excise to the "Microsoft sees me as a revenue stream" fund.. irregardless of the fact they sell information and space on said paid online to advertisers in the first place.

No, you won't draw that line in the sand. You will plug in your microhpone enabled camera to keep track of how many unique males and females use your system at any given time and tow the line that it's "progress" when your system recognizes you from your sister. Just pay no mind to the odd occasional jump from GI Joe The Movie advertisements to the inexplicable Barby's Playhouse Theme you can buy now for $2.99. It's all progress, and don't let anyone tell you a gaming system really should have faster RAM. Those people are fanboys who "just don't get it." After all, you can pause Halo 5 and watch Netflix. You're the boss! Drink the kool-aid.

I think it will be even more awesome if Sony can put the Microsoft threat to bed once and for all by simply sticking to what the gamers want.

I would hate for that to happen. I can't imagine a day where we go back to console domination. Be it Sony or Microsoft. The lack of competition is the death of improved and innovative gaming for the consumers as we know it. Outside of the ridiculous exclusive DLC on different systems, having both consoles near the end of this generation sharing half of the market each, has been one of the best thing for consumers. The last thing I would want is Sony or MS putting either threat to bed. Gamers should hope that the battle continues, in full force.

Originally Posted by Lefein

You are a human being, not a gamer-tag. You might even possibly be a gamer. Microsoft saw Sony strap a console to a CD player and make it's way into over 100 million homes with the PS1. MS had to stand on the sidelines and watch Sony do it again with a DVD player in the PS2. So what did MS do? They zigged with HD-DVD when Sony zagged with BluRay come time for the current gen. It had nothing to do with giving you choice or even about backing a superior format and everything to do with how many houses Sony had access to. Over the course of years, MS kept their eye on the ball by putting their weight behind Live, even when it meant cutting the budget for first party games or even closing studios. Too late in the game, they saw that Nintendo had the right idea and decided to put half a billion dollars in re-branding the 360 as a motion controller oriented device.

The above is exactly why we need "threats" and competition, and why we don't want a single dominant console. Similar to how Sony reacted to Nintendo and previous game consoles by releasing the PS1. Sony's goal, as a hardware company, was to get their hardware and optical formats into as many living rooms as they could. Microsoft, a software company, has a goal of getting their software products in as many households as they could. Sony putting a console in our living rooms had nothing to do with satisfying gamers or giving you a choice over Nintendo. Nope, believe it or not, their (and MS) goal is to get their brand name, hardware and disk formats into as many homes as possible to generate revenue, and in the end, hopefully as much profit as they possibly can to keep their business running, put food on the employee tables, satisfy shareholders.

Luckily, competition has evolved the Sony (and MS) console, with LIVE being one of the biggest ones. Microsoft came in, as the first and only ethernet only, high speed, connected game console with a persistent gamertag that had in game chat and dlc and digital downloadable games started with Xbox 1. Thanks to that competition, and the ever evolving features of Xbox Live, PSN is where is at today. Sony sat around and saw the revenue pumping success of Xbox Live and no longer felt it could sit around on it's hands. Sony continued to pump out firmware after firmware after firmware updates adding more features to PSN. More games, more videos, more apps, more security features, cloud services, PSN+ features for even more revenue. Even their recent PS Store update follows suit with the Xbox Live Marketplace in appearance and suggestive titles.

But of course, MS had to respond to PSN. I mean, Xbox Live costs you money annually to play online, where PSN does not. With PSN+, you can even download games at no additional charge (so long as you are subscribed) AND play online. MS had to respond to that, and they began similar discount days with some discounts hitting Steam like lows, as well as offering some (not many) free games to its gold members. That back and forth is why we as gamers are benefitting today from competition.

Just like how Sony responded to the success of the Nintendo Wii by throwing out a copy cat motion controller. Sony saw the $$ and ended up being a console with the most motion supported titles between the Xbox and PS. They reacted to the market, they put in the marketing dollars, created the motion controlled games, and have sold nearly 20 million move devices because of competition. Because of Wii, because of Kinect, because Sony (and MS) want revenue. They are not doing it for the consumer.

I mean, look at what competition did for MS. Their consoles not only has the most games available, the most exclusives available, but their indie games hit a great niche market, only matched by PC game enthusiasts. Their XBLA library is flooded with great titles, great exclusives, all on top of the retail exclusives. PSN games such as Journey, Pixel Junk and many more are all signs that the competition has sparked these great, exclusive and innovative titles. PSN wouldn't be where it was today if it were not for XBL. XBL would not be where it is today if it were not for PSN.

And here we are, at the cusp of a new generation. You can be sure they are covering all of the bases with some kind of tablet controller, cell phone integration, Kinect right out of the box day 1, and the actual game controller as an afterthought.

Well that is clearly where this gen is going with Xbox and PS. PS integration with phones, move motion, touch screen and display on dual shock, vita, PC integration and enhanced move features. Many after thoughts and many improvements. Sony and MS need to add features in order to sell their products and give consumers a reason to drop another $1000 plus for the next gen.

In fact, I'm more than just a little bit willing to bet you will proclaim every sequel to Halo, Gears of War or Forza as Gaming Messiah just as you have done throughout this generation while more studios close or get relegated to the undead state known as Rare. Nevermind you can't sell your games to pay for new ones or continue to be unable to play the games you buy online without paying your excise to the "Microsoft sees me as a revenue stream" fund.. irregardless of the fact they sell information and space on said paid online to advertisers in the first place.

Similar to the fact that we will all continue to see Uncharted, Killzone or GT sequels as the gaming Messiah, while getting studios closed throughout this generation, it looks like it is business as usual for both companies. Losing exclusives one after another after another while they dedicate more time and money in their online presence, their advertising, and 3D and motion control gimmicks.

No, you won't draw that line in the sand. You will plug in your microhpone enabled camera to keep track of how many unique males and females use your system at any given time and tow the line that it's "progress" when your system recognizes you from your sister. Just pay no mind to the odd occasional jump from GI Joe The Movie advertisements to the inexplicable Barby's Playhouse Theme you can buy now for $2.99. It's all progress, and don't let anyone tell you a gaming system really should have faster RAM. Those people are fanboys who "just don't get it." After all, you can pause Halo 5 and watch Netflix. You're the boss! Drink the kool-aid.

Which, like you said at the beginning...we are human....not gamertags. The consumer should avoid worshipping the plastic, and play the games. Something that both consoles have done in spades this generation...and based on the revenue both have generated, will do again the next generation.

Similar to the fact that we will all continue to see Uncharted, Killzone or GT sequels as the gaming Messiah

You forgot Infamous, little big planet, The last of us, heavy rain...shall I go on lmao. Quite a few than 4 big budget titles from the 360. Too bad they see anything less than 4-5 million as a failure on the 360 and that same dumb logic passes down through the fans that like to debate exclusives. On the other hand these "failed" titles that receive sequels on the ps3 are making a profit or else they would get the boot such as MAG or socom.

You forgot Infamous, little big planet, The last of us, heavy rain...shall I go on lmao. Quite a few than 4 big budget titles from the 360. Too bad they see anything less than 4-5 million as a failure on the 360 and that same dumb logic passes down through the fans that like to debate exclusives. On the other hand these "failed" titles that receive sequels on the ps3 are making a profit or else they would get the boot such as MAG or socom.

Journey, a beautiful game that won many GOTY awards and even went to the Grammys, had a hard time selling and That Game Company is now going multiplat because of it. How many studios closed this gen?
EA says Dead Space 3 needs 5 million+ sales to be able to continue the franchise, Superbot entertainment just laid off so many employees, Lightbox interactive (starhawk dev) is now making iOS games, same with many others like David Jaffe. Not to mention the whole THQ fiasco

I wonder when a nuclear warhead goes off, does the frame rate of real life drop?

Journey, a beautiful game that won many GOTY awards and even went to the Grammys, had a hard time selling and That Game Company is now going multiplat because of it. How many studios closed this gen?
EA says Dead Space 3 needs 5 million+ sales to be able to continue the franchise, Superbot entertainment just laid off so many employees, Lightbox interactive (starhawk dev) is now making iOS games, same with many others like David Jaffe. Not to mention the whole THQ fiasco

Well, the companies HAVE to make a profit, not just revenue. This is probably why we see the developers of Resistance going multiplatform, as well as developers of Mass Effect going multiplatform. From everything I have read, including your comment about Dead Space 3 needing 5 million plus to be profitable, it's expensive as hell.

I would hate for that to happen. I can't imagine a day where we go back to console domination. Be it Sony or Microsoft. The lack of competition is the death of improved and innovative gaming for the consumers as we know it. Outside of the ridiculous exclusive DLC on different systems, having both consoles near the end of this generation sharing half of the market each, has been one of the best thing for consumers. The last thing I would want is Sony or MS putting either threat to bed. Gamers should hope that the battle continues, in full force.

I 100% disagree with that assertion. What is best for gaming is that a machine dedicated to the core gamer dominates the industry. When you look at the PS1 and PS2 generations, you see that they have covered ground from Doom to Katamari Damacy. The "casual audience" gets to play as well and everyone is happy. On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have a generation like the current one where there is no clear winner (Wii started dropping off the map all of a sudden and the 360 plateaus well below 100 million while waging the "Kinect bet"). This three horse race gave way to the "Call of Duty Generation." Most would agree we have not had anywhere near the same environment being as good for gaming as generations past. In fact, Third parties have had to go multiplatform or face serious financial consequences!

Healthy competition is good, but that's not what we saw this generation and it is about to get a whole lot uglier as we see at least one of the big players set sight on their end-game. The sad part being that it doesn't benefit games at all and the hardware itself is the proof in the pudding.

The above is exactly why we need "threats" and competition, and why we don't want a single dominant console. Similar to how Sony reacted to Nintendo and previous game consoles by releasing the PS1. Sony's goal, as a hardware company, was to get their hardware and optical formats into as many living rooms as they could. Microsoft, a software company, has a goal of getting their software products in as many households as they could. Sony putting a console in our living rooms had nothing to do with satisfying gamers or giving you a choice over Nintendo. Nope, believe it or not, their (and MS) goal is to get their brand name, hardware and disk formats into as many homes as possible to generate revenue, and in the end, hopefully as much profit as they possibly can to keep their business running, put food on the employee tables, satisfy shareholders.

But you see, CD and DVD weren't Sony owned formats. We see what happened with the PS3 when Sony "played their hand" to push a format out to the consumer.. They started tanking. This is exactly what will happen to MS (granted, if the rumors are true, which many sources are corroborating.)

And you are wrong (not grossly, but it is so) about Microsoft's ambitions. They already have their software in everyone's homes. They want to go after a services model, because that is where the content delivery of the future resides as they see it. That's why the Playstation had them freaked out in the first place. Like I said, the Xbox is not about the gamer, that's just the convenient Trojan Horse that Microsoft rode in on. To their credit, at least it has been more successful than WebTV.

Before the advent of the tablet boom, MS was scared to death that you could replace your PC with a device in the living room that wouldn't run Windows. It would be the beginning of the end of their empire (a paranoid fantasy, but guys like Ballmer don't get paid to be satisfied or comfortable). The thinking in Redmond is that they live in an ecosystem much like Earth where one meteor strike later, they go the way of the Dinosaur by tethering their fate to the PC. They have the capital to piss away on this paranoia, so they do it.

Luckily, competition has evolved the Sony (and MS) console, with LIVE being one of the biggest ones. Microsoft came in, as the first and only ethernet only, high speed, connected game console with a persistent gamertag that had in game chat and dlc and digital downloadable games started with Xbox 1. Thanks to that competition, and the ever evolving features of Xbox Live, PSN is where is at today. Sony sat around and saw the revenue pumping success of Xbox Live and no longer felt it could sit around on it's hands. Sony continued to pump out firmware after firmware after firmware updates adding more features to PSN. More games, more videos, more apps, more security features, cloud services, PSN+ features for even more revenue. Even their recent PS Store update follows suit with the Xbox Live Marketplace in appearance and suggestive titles.

But of course, MS had to respond to PSN. I mean, Xbox Live costs you money annually to play online, where PSN does not. With PSN+, you can even download games at no additional charge (so long as you are subscribed) AND play online. MS had to respond to that, and they began similar discount days with some discounts hitting Steam like lows, as well as offering some (not many) free games to its gold members. That back and forth is why we as gamers are benefitting today from competition.

The results remain to be seen on that argument. If all the console makers decided to follow the Live route and charge for online play in order to compete with a machine that doesn't focus on gaming and is being leveraged by a company such as Microsoft that has infinite money hax (Hello, Billion dollar hardware bailout and then half billion dollar advertising campaign for Kinect ring a bell?) then, No. It's not healthy for gaming. It's just strong-arming that plays to the strength of the player who is always ahead in their subscription model. We have marginally profited as gamers up to this point, but that doesn't mean we are not one "marketing campaign" from all of that being utter bull$#@!.

Just like how Sony responded to the success of the Nintendo Wii by throwing out a copy cat motion controller. Sony saw the $$ and ended up being a console with the most motion supported titles between the Xbox and PS. They reacted to the market, they put in the marketing dollars, created the motion controlled games, and have sold nearly 20 million move devices because of competition. Because of Wii, because of Kinect, because Sony (and MS) want revenue. They are not doing it for the consumer.

Again, they didn't go a half billion dollars out of pocket to go that route. They created a companion product, just like they did with the EyeToy and just like Nintendo did back in the 80's with the Power Pad and let the market take its course. There's a pretty big difference, and one need only look at the dithering core first party titles on Ye Box of X the last couple of years to see it. There's a very positive difference between Sony and MS on this subject.. Sony didn't abandon the core gamer in the process of leveraging their motion controls and were able to do so with access to far less capital.

I mean, look at what competition did for MS. Their consoles not only has the most games available, the most exclusives available, but their indie games hit a great niche market, only matched by PC game enthusiasts. Their XBLA library is flooded with great titles, great exclusives, all on top of the retail exclusives. PSN games such as Journey, Pixel Junk and many more are all signs that the competition has sparked these great, exclusive and innovative titles. PSN wouldn't be where it was today if it were not for XBL. XBL would not be where it is today if it were not for PSN.

And yet, Live on PC was a complete and utter failure.. What gets touted as exclusives are either just timed exclusives or PC ports. Merely the advantage of having APIs based in PC-centric development and leveraging them onto consoles. This advantage translates to no one else but a Microsoft console and thus has next to no benefit for gaming in general. Not that the fact necessarily angers me so much as gives me something to laugh about. Every single "List War" this generation has really given me more reasons to see my gaming PC as invaluable considering I don't pay for the online and get to play a vast majority of that library with far better controls and graphics. It just doesn't happen to be on the Playstation console, but whoopty doo.

Well that is clearly where this gen is going with Xbox and PS. PS integration with phones, move motion, touch screen and display on dual shock, vita, PC integration and enhanced move features. Many after thoughts and many improvements. Sony and MS need to add features in order to sell their products and give consumers a reason to drop another $1000 plus for the next gen.

I'm telling you, one of these consoles is going to be focused on everything but running the games while the other is going to be focused on games and use that same hardware for other utility functions. One console is going to be focused on being the best "content delivery vehicle" in your living room while the other one will be a great game console and an adequate "content delivery vehicle."

The line between having a Windows 8 PC jacked into your TV (albeit, with a constrained set of services and applications available for it rather than a fully open architecture) or having a game system connected to your TV is about to get blurry as hell. Frankly, I'd rather just make a set top PC and at least be able to shop outside of one company's teet if I wanted to go that direction than pretend that I have some kind of convenience in a re-shelling and re purposed set top box. Skip the foreplay and get right to the sex, if you will.

Similar to the fact that we will all continue to see Uncharted, Killzone or GT sequels as the gaming Messiah, while getting studios closed throughout this generation, it looks like it is business as usual for both companies. Losing exclusives one after another after another while they dedicate more time and money in their online presence, their advertising, and 3D and motion control gimmicks.

I'd say the difference between the two in that arena has been fairly stark. The PS3s rise in sales would dictate that the average gamer has also noticed that difference.

Which, like you said at the beginning...we are human....not gamertags. The consumer should avoid worshipping the plastic, and play the games. Something that both consoles have done in spades this generation...and based on the revenue both have generated, will do again the next generation.

I go back to my earlier point. Sony played their cards at the onset of this generation and are not walking away with a big win, but I do think they are walking away having learned a few lessons about what people want out of their console. It is Microsoft that is going into this without their heads "in the game" and when you do that, people react. Come the 20th, we'll know if this is going to be Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidge Raaaaaaaaaaaaceeerrr Sony or if this is going to be Playstation 2 Sony.

Most gamers are not vehemently anti-Sony these days. We can probably thank Red Rings of Death, $60 Live fees, Kinect ADD, a Bungie-less XBox, and the general slash and burn tactics that have come along with it all. The "unit sale at any cost" mentality that we have seen like no time before might just cost the next generation. February 20th.. All eyes are on Playstation.

Last edited by Lefein; 02-12-2013 at 15:03.

War is fought for silence. For, it is with silence, you will know that war has ended.

I 100% disagree with that assertion. What is best for gaming is that a machine dedicated to the core gamer dominates the industry. When you look at the PS1 and PS2 generations, you see that they have covered ground from Doom to Katamari Damacy. The "casual audience" gets to play as well and everyone is happy. On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have a generation like the current one where there is no clear winner (Wii started dropping off the map all of a sudden and the 360 plateaus well below 100 million while waging the "Kinect bet"). This three horse race gave way to the "Call of Duty Generation." Most would agree we have not had anywhere near the same environment being as good for gaming as generations past. In fact, Third parties have had to go multiplatform or face serious financial consequences!

Healthy competition is good, but that's not what we saw this generation and it is about to get a whole lot uglier as we see at least one of the big players set sight on their end-game. The sad part being that it doesn't benefit games at all and the hardware itself is the proof in the pudding.

But you see, CD and DVD weren't Sony owned formats. We see what happened with the PS3 when Sony "played their hand" to push a format out to the consumer.. They started tanking. This is exactly what will happen to MS (granted, if the rumors are true, which many sources are corroborating.)

And you are wrong (not grossly, but it is so) about Microsoft's ambitions. They already have their software in everyone's homes. They want to go after a services model, because that is where the content delivery of the future resides as they see it. That's why the Playstation had them freaked out in the first place. Like I said, the Xbox is not about the gamer, that's just the convenient Trojan Horse that Microsoft rode in on. To their credit, at least it has been more successful than WebTV.

Before the advent of the tablet boom, MS was scared to death that you could replace your PC with a device in the living room that wouldn't run Windows. It would be the beginning of the end of their empire (a paranoid fantasy, but guys like Ballmer don't get paid to be satisfied or comfortable). The thinking in Redmond is that they live in an ecosystem much like Earth where one meteor strike later, they go the way of the Dinosaur by tethering their fate to the PC. They have the capital to piss away on this paranoia, so they do it.

The results remain to be seen on that argument. If all the console makers decided to follow the Live route and charge for online play in order to compete with a machine that doesn't focus on gaming and is being leveraged by a company such as Microsoft that has infinite money hax (Hello, Billion dollar hardware bailout and then half billion dollar advertising campaign for Kinect ring a bell?) then, No. It's not healthy for gaming. It's just strong-arming that plays to the strength of the player who is always ahead in their subscription model. We have marginally profited as gamers up to this point, but that doesn't mean we are not one "marketing campaign" from all of that being utter bull$#@!.

Again, they didn't go a half billion dollars out of pocket to go that route. They created a companion product, just like they did with the EyeToy and just like Nintendo did back in the 80's with the Power Pad and let the market take its course. There's a pretty big difference, and one need only look at the dithering core first party titles on Ye Box of X the last couple of years to see it. There's a very positive difference between Sony and MS on this subject.. Sony didn't abandon the core gamer in the process of leveraging their motion controls and were able to do so with access to far less capital.

And yet, Live on PC was a complete and utter failure.. What gets touted as exclusives are either just timed exclusives or PC ports. Merely the advantage of having APIs based in PC-centric development and leveraging them onto consoles. This advantage translates to no one else but a Microsoft console and thus has next to no benefit for gaming in general. Not that the fact necessarily angers me so much as gives me something to laugh about. Every single "List War" this generation has really given me more reasons to see my gaming PC as invaluable considering I don't pay for the online and get to play a vast majority of that library with far better controls and graphics. It just doesn't happen to be on the Playstation console, but whoopty doo.

I'm telling you, one of these consoles is going to be focused on everything but running the games while the other is going to be focused on games and use that same hardware for other utility functions. One console is going to be focused on being the best "content delivery vehicle" in your living room while the other one will be a great game console and an adequate "content delivery vehicle."

The line between having a Windows 8 PC jacked into your TV (albeit, with a constrained set of services and applications available for it rather than a fully open architecture) or having a game system connected to your TV is about to get blurry as hell. Frankly, I'd rather just make a set top PC and at least be able to shop outside of one company's teet if I wanted to go that direction than pretend that I have some kind of convenience in a re-shelling and re purposed set top box. Skip the foreplay and get right to the sex, if you will.

I'd say the difference between the two in that arena has been fairly stark. The PS3s rise in sales would dictate that the average gamer has also noticed that difference.

I go back to my earlier point. Sony played their cards at the onset of this generation and are not walking away with a big win, but I do think they are walking away having learned a few lessons about what people want out of their console. It is Microsoft that is going into this without their heads "in the game" and when you do that, people react. Come the 20th, we'll know if this is going to be Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidge Raaaaaaaaaaaaceeerrr Sony or if this is going to be Playstation 2 Sony.

Most gamers are not vehemently anti-Sony these days. We can probably thank Red Rings of Death, $60 Live fees, Kinect ADD, a Bungie-less XBox, and the general slash and burn tactics that have come along with it all. The "unit sale at any cost" mentality that we have seen like no time before might just cost the next generation. February 20th.. All eyes are on Playstation.

We will just have to agree to disagree, as I disagree with just about every one of your points.

Not a big deal really, there is no right or wrong here. The gamer needs to look out for themselves, and their desires and do what is best for them. For me, it's thriving competition, owning both consoles so I get all the great games, and hope that the next gen is half as good as this past gen was.

Every single "List War" this generation has really given me more reasons to see my gaming PC as invaluable considering I don't pay for the online and get to play a vast majority of that library with far better controls and graphics.

Actually, I will address this comment. I wish I could get back into PC gaming more. That just might happen one day.